IAEG2006 Paper number 509

Improving liquefaction potential strength by using micropiles

1 2
SEYED ABOLHASSAN NAEINI & REZA ZIAIE MOAYED
1
Imam Khomeini International University. (e-mail: Naeini_h@yahoo.com)
2
Imam Khomeini International University. (e-mail: Ziaie _Moayed @yahoo.com)

Abstract: During cyclic loadings, such as those produced by earthquakes, liquefaction of undrained saturated
cohesionless materials are well recognized as being the main devastating phenomenon on structures. Various
remedial treatment methods for this type of soil are widely used, such as densification methods by compacting
the soil, solidification methods by increasing the density of the material, or lowering the water table down to
improve the effective stress of the in situ soil. Remedial treatment methods of soils to avoid possible initiation
of liquefaction are based either on the principle of improving the characteristics of the soil or by means of
draining the water, and thus present the same disadvantages modifying the in situ soil before construction. This
research will study an alternative system using micropiles. This reinforces the soil by its structural elements
rather than changing its properties. Micropiles have been used effectively in many applications of ground
improvement to increase the bearing capacity and reduce the settlement particularly in strengthening existing
foundations.
This paper deals with a case study in which micropiles have been used to improve the liquefaction strength
of the soil by using the results of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) on a real site, before and after installation of
the micropile systems. The results show that, using micropiles reduces the liquefaction potential of the soil.

Résumé: Pendant les chargements cycliques, tels que ces produit par les tremblements de terre, la liquéfaction
de matériels de cohesionless undrained saturés sont bien a reconnu comme est le phénomène qui dévaste
principal sur les structures. Les diverses méthodes de traitement réparatrices pour ce type de sol sont largement
utilisées, tel que les méthodes de densification par comprime le sol, les méthodes de solidification en
augmentant la densité du matériel, ou abaisser la table d'eau en bas pour améliorer la tension efficace du dans le
sol de situ. Les méthodes réparatrices de traitement de sols pour éviter l'initiation possible de liquéfaction est
basée ou sur le principe d'améliorer les caractéristiques du sol ou au moyen de drainer l'eau, et ainsi les
désavantages pareils présents modifiant le dans le sol de situ avant la construction. Cette recherche étudiera un
micropiles d'utilisation de système alternatif. Ceci renforce le sol par ses éléments au lieu de changer
structuraux ses propriétés. Micropiles a été efficacement utilisé dans beaucoup d'applications d'amélioration de
sol pour augmenter la capacité de maintien et réduit le règlement particulièrement dans fortifier les fondations
existantes. Ce papier traite une étude de cas dans lequel micropiles a été utilisé pour améliorer la force de
liquéfaction du sol en utilisant les résultats de Test de Pénétration Standard (SPT) sur un vrai site, avant et après
l'installation des systèmes de micropile. Les résultats montrent cela, utilisant micropiles réduit le potentiel de
liquéfaction du sol.

Keywords: cohesionless materials, liquefaction, strength, standard penetration test, micropiles

INTRODUCTION
In the presence of strong ground motion, liquefaction hazards are likely to occur in saturated cohesionless soils.
Soil liquefaction improvement options can be characterized as densification, drainage, reinforcement, mixing or
replacement. Densification methods, modifications leading to improving the cohesive properties of the soil (hardening
or mixing), removal and replacement, or permanent dewatering can reduce or eliminate liquefaction potential. Other
methods such as reinforcement of the soil or the use of shallow or deep foundations designed to accommodate the
occurrence of liquefaction and associated vertical and horizontal deformations may also achieve mitigate risk to an an
acceptable level. The choice of mitigation method will depend on the likely extent of liquefaction and the related
consequences. Also, the cost of mitigation must be considered in light of an acceptable level of risk. Youd (1995) has
suggested that structural mitigation for liquefaction hazards may be acceptable where small lateral displacements and
vertical settlement are predicted.
The most widely used techniques for in – situ densification of liquefiable soils are vibro- compaction, vibro-
replacement, deep dynamic compaction, and compaction (pressure) grouting (Hayden and Baez 1994). Hardening and
/or mixing techniques seek to reduce the void space in the liquefiable soil by introducing grout materials either
through permeation, mixing mechanically, or jetting. These techniques are known as permeation grouting, soil mixing,
or jet grouting. Design methodology and implementation of these techniques are described by Baker (1992) and
Moseley (1993).
Remedial treatment methods of soils to avoid possible initiation of liquefaction are based either on the principle of
improving the characteristics of the soil or by means of draining the water, these activities being performed before
construction. This research presents an alternative system using micropiles, and raises the benefits of strengthening the
soil by reinforcing it with structural elements.

© The Geological Society of London 2006 1

 IAEG2006 Paper number 509

Micropiles have been used effectively in many ground improvement applications to increase the bearing capacity
and reduce settlement, particularly in strengthening existing foundations. Design methodology and implementation of
these techniques are described in FHWA-SA-97-070.
This paper deals with a case study in which micropiles have been used to improve the liquefaction strength of loose
sandy soil using the results obtained from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) taken at the site before and after
installation of the micropile systems.

SITE INVESTIGATION
The region under study is located in the low lying strip of coastal land next to Persian Gulf in Bandar Abbas
(Southern Part of Iran). The project site is related to building of Bandar Abbas post office. To identify the on-site soil
stratigraphy, three boreholes were drilled to depths of 15 m at pre-determined locations using a rotary drilling rig.
During the drilling operations, Standard Penetration Tests were performed. Undisturbed and disturbed sampling was
also performed at various depths. To classify the subsurface soils and determine their physical, chemical and
mechanical characteristics laboratory tests were performed on the samples obtained during the drilling process.

Soil stratification
Based on the results of laboratory and in-situ tests, the soil layers between ground surface and bottom of borehole
are formed of varying clean and silty sands (SM, SP). Intermittent layers of sandy clay (CL) and sandy silt (ML) with
limited thickness were recognised. Ground water level was found to be at depths of 1m from the ground surface
during drilling. Based on the SPT results, soil layers at depths less than 8 m are classified as loose sandy soils. With
increasing depth the compaction of the soil layers increased. Due to the high ground water level and loose sandy soil
layers on site which would be prone to liquefaction, evaluation of liquefaction potential was considered to be
imperative.

Liquefaction potential evaluation procedure

To determine the liquefaction potential the directive issued by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER-1997) was followed. In this directive, evaluation methods of liquefaction potential for sandy and
clayey soils are considered and relevant procedures with respect to soil type are applied to determine liquefaction
potential of the soil.
In NCEER-97directive Professor Seeds recommendations are used to assess the liquefaction potential in sandy
soils. Two quantities have to be determined: 1) Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) and 2) Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR).

Cyclic stress Ratio

Using Seed and Idriss (1981), CSR is determined using the following equation:
CSR= (τav / σ’v0) =0.65 (amax /g) (σv0/σ’v0) rd
where: τav is the average shear strength in kPa, σ’v0 is the effective over burden pressure at depth considered in soil
2
layer in kPa, amax is the maximum horizontal acceleration caused by an earthquake at ground surface in m/s ,g is the
ground acceleration in m/s , σ 9  is the total overburden pressure at depth considered in soil layer in kPa and rd is the
2

shear stress reduction coefficient with depth. NCEER-97 has recommended the following relations to determine shear
stress reduction coefficient with depth (rd):
rd =1.0-0.00765Z Z ≤ 9.15(m)

rd =1.174-0.0267Z 9.15 <Z ≤ 23(m)

The maximum horizontal ground acceleration is taken as: D =0.35 g.

Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)

The most reasonable method to determine CRR is to obtain undisturbed soil samples and perform cyclic shear
tests. Due to difficulties in obtaining satisfactory undisturbed samples from granular soils, use of in-situ tests for
liquefaction studies are now encouraged.
At present, many in-situ tests are available to determine liquefaction potential, for instance Cone Penetration Test
(CPT), Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and measurement of shear wave velocity (vs).
Determination of CRR based on SPT results was first proposed by Seed and presented as a diagram in 1985. In
1997, this diagram was reviewed by NCEER and eventually Figure 1 was prepared. Here, based on data collected
from sites of past earthquakes with / without liquefaction, a base curve for clean sand is given. Using a corrected SPT
value (N1)60, CRR is determined from the given curves. In silty sands the effect of fines content must be accounted for.
To do this, the equivalent corrected SPT value is defined as follows:
(N1)60cs=KS (N1)60
where KS is the fines content correction factor and is calculated as:

2
 IAEG2006 Paper number 509

KS =1+ [(0.75/30) (FC-5)]









 










   
   
 

Figure 1.Evaluation of liquefaction potential (NCEER-97) of sandy soils

The factor of safety against liquefaction will be determined with following equation:
F.S=CRR/CSR

Liquefaction Potential Evaluation in this project

For all 3 boreholes liquefaction potential are determined. For this purpose, the corrected SPT values are evaluated
at various depths based on NCEER-97 procedure. Then the liquefaction potential is determined. The results are
presented in Tables 1 and Figures 2-4. It can be concluded that, at depths less than 5.0 m (due to existence of loose
saturated sandy layers), liquefaction is likely to occur and the safety factor is less than 1.

Table 1. Liquefaction potential evaluation in Boreholes (before & after Micropile Installation)
Before Micropile
Boreholes
Z
USCS σv0 σ’v0 CSR Installation
After Micropile Installation
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (N1)60CS CRR F.S (N1)60CS CRR F.S
1 SM 20.0 10.0 0.452 35 0.567 1.254 38 0.846 1.872
2 SM 40.0 20.0 0.449 30 0.459 1.022 35 0.638 1.420
BH#1 3 SP-SM 60.0 30.0 0.446 24 0.267 0.600 34 0.509 1.143
4 SP-SM 80.0 40.0 0.443 22 0.240 0.543 36 0.638 1.442
5 SP-SM 100.0 50.0 0.439 19 0.205 0.467 35 0.567 1.292
1 SP-SM 20.0 10.0 0.452 28 0.343 0.759 36 0.638 1.411
2 SP-SM 40.0 20.0 0.449 28 0.343 0.764 37 0.728 1.621
BH#2 3 SM 60.0 30.0 0.446 63 N.L. 73 N.L.
4 SM 80.0 40.0 0.443 54 N.L. 65 N.L.
5 SP-SM 100.0 50.0 0.439 22 0.240 0.467 35 0.567 1.292
1 SM 20.0 10.0 0.452 29 0.375 0.829 35 0.567 1.254
2 SM 40.0 20.0 0.449 32 0.450 1.002 35 0.567 1.263
BH#3 3 SM 60.0 30.0 0.446 55 N.L. 60 N.L.
4 SM 80.0 40.0 0.443 32 0.450 1.017 36 0.638 1.440
5 SM 100.0 50.0 0.439 31 0.450 1.024 37 0.728 1.658

3
 IAEG2006 Paper number 509









  











   
   
 

Figure 2. Liquefaction potential evaluation in BH#1 (Before micropile installation)









  











   
   
 

Figure 3. Liquefaction potential evaluation in BH#2 (Before micropile installation)








 










   
   
 

Figure 4. Liquefaction potential evaluation in BH#3 (Before micropile installation)

4
 IAEG2006 Paper number 509

IMPROVING LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL USING MICROPILES

Considering the weakness of the soil on the site, use of micropiles to improve soil properties is technically and
economically a suitable method among various alternatives available. Here, by installing micropiles together with
grouting under pressure and use of proper admixtures, the mechanical and geotechnical properties of soil are
considerably improved. The reinforced soil mass created acts as a resistant coherent body improving the compaction
properties of loose layers and also providing suitable load bearing capacity to transfer structural loads to the ground.
The micropiles used consisted own of porous steel tubes with 75 mm outer and 68 mm inner diameters. Two types
of micropiles with lengths of 8 and 12 m were used. The grouting pressure for each micropile was about 10 to 12
atmosphere. Standard Penetration Tests were performed after micropile installation. Then, the liquefaction potential of
soil layers was calculated after soil improvement based on the new SPT results. The results obtained are shown in
Table 1 and Figure 5-7. It is shown that the SPT values of soil layers are increased after soil improvement with
micropile installation. Therefore the liquefaction resistances of sandy soil are modified.









 










   
   
 

Figure 5.Liquefaction potential evaluation in BH#1 (After micropile installation)









  











   
    
 

Figure 6. Liquefaction potential evaluation in BH#2 (After micropile installation)

5
 IAEG2006 Paper number 509








  











   
    
 

Figure 7. Liquefaction potential evaluation in BH#3 (After micropile installation)

CONCLUSIONS
A case study in which micropiles have been used to improve the liquefaction strength of loose sandy soil by using
the results of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) on a real site, before and after installation of the micropile system is
presented here. Based on the SPT results, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1) Micropile installation techniques is a practical and useful method for improvement of liquefiable soils.
2) At the site, liquefaction is likely to occur at depths less than 5.0 m due to existence of loose saturated sandy
layers, and the safety factor is less than 1.
3) The SPT values of soil layers are increased after soil improvement with micropile installation. Therefore the
liquefaction resistances of sandy soil are modified.

REFERENCES
BAKER, WALLACE H., 1992. Planning and Performing Structural Chemical Grouting. Grouting in Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE Specially Conference, New Orleans, 515-240.
FHWA-SA-97-070.Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines.
th
HAYDEN AND BAEZ, 1994. State of Practice for Liquefaction Mitigation in North America. In: Proceedings of the 4 U.S. -
Japan workshop on Soil Liquefaction, Remedial Treatment of Potentially Liquefiable Soils, PWRI, Tsukuba city, Japan.
MOSELEY, M.P. (Editor), 1993. Ground Improvement, CRC press, Inc, Boca Raton, Florida
NCEER-97.Evalution of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.
rd
YOUD, T.L., 1995. Liquefaction – Induced Lateral Ground Displacement. In: Proceedings of the 3 International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, S. Prakash, (2), 911-925.